The second film that J7 is happy to recommend to anyone interested in the events of 7/7 is one that updates and expands greatly on the information presented in Ludicrous Diversion, and also helps place the events of 7/7 in a wider historical and political context.

7/7: Seeds of Deconstruction

Investigative documentary 7/7: Seeds of Deconstruction which examines some of the questions and conspiracy theories about 7/7 the July 7th 2005 London Bombings.

The first half of the film examines covert operations from three different periods - Central America 1954-63, Italy 1945-1990 and Afghanistan/Pakistan 1979-Present day. These operations are used to provide context to the second half of the film, which is a detailed analysis not only of the events of the day of 7/7, but of the intelligence and security policy of the War on Terror in which 7/7 happened.

What do people on this board think about the documentary?_________________> this is a crisis i knew had to come
> destroying the balance i'd kept
> turning around to the next set of lies
> wondering what will come next
[ passover / joy division ]

The following estimates represent citizens killed or starved to death by their own Communist governments since 1918. These numbers do not include war dead. The governments are sorted by body count (highest to lowest).

All numbers are mid-estimates.

While this list is as complete as I have been able to determine, it is evolving. Some numbers are incomplete and there are still five Communist countries that have the potential to kill more of their citizens. Over the next year, each government will be profiled in detail on this website.

A detailed bibliography is listed at the end of this page. Feedback is more than welcome.

Communist Body Count: 149,469,610

And fascism is an atheist ideology also.

(edit)

Just briefly, I would need to go through and watch it again.

Little or no mention of Mosad pre knowledge ect.

Little or no mention of the counterfeit Israel companies that run the close-d circuit TV.

No mention of hits at “Canary Wharf” when research has been done on it.

In one part it says about a camera man who says that it looked as though people were involved in a drill and clean, then says about DO’s story, but no one has corroborated his story of people involved in a drill in the next sentence (talk sport)

It would take a brave person to come forward.

A witness, Richmal Marie Oates-Whitehead, aged 35, who worked at the BMA in Tavistock Square, and was hailed as a heroine for her actions during the London bombings, said she heard two explosions on the bus.

No mention. The controlled media immediately went on the offensive, and did a character assassination of the heroine, because her testimony did not fit with the official story, and she died unexpectedly, shortly afterwards. However, other witnesses also reported a second explosion on the bus. Richmal’s and other witness’ testimonies would account for pre-planted explosives, and a bomb being planted later, on 7/7/2005.

The 91 bus, that Hasib Hussain is reported to have taken from King’s Cross, along Euston Road to Euston Station; to board the number 30 bus, registration LX03BUF, that got diverted into Tavistock Square; actually goes to Tavistock Square. So, if he wanted to get to Tavistock Square, he could just have stayed on the number 91 bus, and been sure of getting directly to Tavistock Square. The number 91 bus route goes from King’s Cross to Tavistock Square.

So, if Hasib Hussain was supposed to have been on that number 30 bus, registration LX03BUF, how would it be possible for him to get the exact bus, that would get him to one of the four locations where the mock-terrorist exercise would be taking place, when that bus was diverted from its normal route, to Tavistock Square, unless he had been recruited to play the part of a mock-terrorist and told exactly which bus to get, where and at what time, by the people who organised the mock-terrorism exercise, and who knew the bus would be diverted to Tavistock Square? The odds against that happening by coincidence are unbelievable, and thus it is not possible that it was a coincidence. (by that report)

A witness, Richmal Marie Oates-Whitehead, aged 35, who worked at the BMA in Tavistock Square, and was hailed as a heroine for her actions during the London bombings, said she heard two explosions on the bus.

A witness, Richmal Marie Oates-Whitehead, aged 35, who worked at the BMA in Tavistock Square, and was hailed as a heroine for her actions during the London bombings, said she heard two explosions on the bus.

No mention.

She was more than "mentioned" as I remember!

Apologies, it does give her account and also shows news coverage of a controlled explosion? Where the reporter says that “we did hear an explosion a few moments ago”

updates and expands greatly on the information presented in Ludicrous Diversion, and also helps place the events of 7/7 in a wider historical and political context.
...................................................................... .....

Investigative documentary 7/7: Seeds of Deconstruction which examines some of the questions and conspiracy theories about 7/7 the July 7th 2005 London Bombings.

The first half of the film examines covert operations from three different periods - Central America 1954-63, Italy 1945-1990 and Afghanistan/Pakistan 1979-Present day. These operations are used to provide context to the second half of the film, which is a detailed analysis not only of the events of the day of 7/7, but of the intelligence and security policy of the War on Terror in which 7/7 happened.

updates and expands greatly on the information presented in Ludicrous Diversion, and also helps place the events of 7/7 in a wider historical and political context.
...................................................................... .....

Investigative documentary 7/7: Seeds of Deconstruction which examines some of the questions and conspiracy theories about 7/7 the July 7th 2005 London Bombings.

The first half of the film examines covert operations from three different periods - Central America 1954-63, Italy 1945-1990 and Afghanistan/Pakistan 1979-Present day. These operations are used to provide context to the second half of the film, which is a detailed analysis not only of the events of the day of 7/7, but of the intelligence and security policy of the War on Terror in which 7/7 happened.

I'm the maker of 7/7: Seeds of Deconstruction and would like to respond to some of the comments and criticisms made of it on the 9/11 forum. However, I tried to register there two days ago and because it is set up with the ludicrous rule that an admin has to approve you before you've even posted anything (i.e. when they can't know if you're a spammer, troll, serious poster, whatever) I've yet to be granted the ability to post.

Needless to say, I think allowing people to mindlessly slate my film without granting me the right of reply contradicts everything you've ever said about free speech. But hey ho, just another conspirocrite.

(I'm reposting this as Gosling moved it out and merged it with another thread - as this documentary covers the events of July 7th 2005 it deserves to be discussed and linked here. Gosling - hands off!)

7/7: Seeds of Deconstruction, released 3 August 2010

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign, 10 August 2010

The second film that J7 is happy to recommend to anyone interested in the events of 7/7 is one that updates and expands greatly on the information presented in Ludicrous Diversion, and also helps place the events of 7/7 in a wider historical and political context.

7/7: Seeds of Deconstruction

Investigative documentary 7/7: Seeds of Deconstruction which examines some of the questions and conspiracy theories about 7/7 the July 7th 2005 London Bombings.

The first half of the film examines covert operations from three different periods - Central America 1954-63, Italy 1945-1990 and Afghanistan/Pakistan 1979-Present day. These operations are used to provide context to the second half of the film, which is a detailed analysis not only of the events of the day of 7/7, but of the intelligence and security policy of the War on Terror in which 7/7 happened.

I couldn't include everything, and the issue of the warning is a bit convoluted. There seems to have been a warning, but who sent it to whom, and exactly when, is one of those things where the reporting all contradicts the other reporting. Though it was officially denied, so it almost definitely happened.

Quote:

Little or no mention of the counterfeit Israel companies that run the close-d circuit TV.

No mention at all, again because of time constraints. Besides which, prior documentaries have covered that and I didn't find anything new that wasn't covered in those prior films. Where I did replicate some of the points and arguments made in prior films, it was because new stuff had come out since the films, and so the discussion had moved on accordingly.

Quote:

No mention of hits at “Canary Wharf” when research has been done on it.

I don't think there's much evidence for 'hits' at Canary Wharf, and it is only particularly important if you are, a la Ripple Effect, trying to construct an inside job narrative. I wasn't. I could, but I'm not going to, at least not in a serious film.

Quote:

In one part it says about a camera man who says that it looked as though people were involved in a drill and clean, then says about DO’s story, but no one has corroborated his story of people involved in a drill in the next sentence (talk sport)

Louis Fernandez (the cameraman) didn't say he thought people were involved in a drill, he said he expected to see a film crew. Obachike goes much further than just expressing disbelief at what he saw, he says the whole thing was either a drill, a mock-up, or an inside job. I am not aware of any corroboration of Obachike's story, and if you are then by all means tell me about it.

Quote:

It would take a brave person to come forward.

A witness, Richmal Marie Oates-Whitehead, aged 35, who worked at the BMA in Tavistock Square, and was hailed as a heroine for her actions during the London bombings, said she heard two explosions on the bus.

No mention.

As you've now realised, I covered her story in the section on the bus explosion.

Quote:

The controlled media immediately went on the offensive, and did a character assassination of the heroine, because her testimony did not fit with the official story, and she died unexpectedly, shortly afterwards. However, other witnesses also reported a second explosion on the bus. Richmal’s and other witness’ testimonies would account for pre-planted explosives, and a bomb being planted later, on 7/7/2005.

All in the film, and it's a compelling story that does indeed tally with reports of controlled explosions elsewhere. Now, not every controlled explosion is validated - they did blow up a microwave in Pittsburgh not so long ago - it does suggest something more complex, pre-planned than four guys with bombs in backpacks.

Quote:

The 91 bus, that Hasib Hussain is reported to have taken from King’s Cross, along Euston Road to Euston Station; to board the number 30 bus, registration LX03BUF, that got diverted into Tavistock Square; actually goes to Tavistock Square. So, if he wanted to get to Tavistock Square, he could just have stayed on the number 91 bus, and been sure of getting directly to Tavistock Square. The number 91 bus route goes from King’s Cross to Tavistock Square.

So, if Hasib Hussain was supposed to have been on that number 30 bus, registration LX03BUF, how would it be possible for him to get the exact bus, that would get him to one of the four locations where the mock-terrorist exercise would be taking place, when that bus was diverted from its normal route, to Tavistock Square, unless he had been recruited to play the part of a mock-terrorist and told exactly which bus to get, where and at what time, by the people who organised the mock-terrorism exercise, and who knew the bus would be diverted to Tavistock Square? The odds against that happening by coincidence are unbelievable, and thus it is not possible that it was a coincidence. (by that report)

I think you are assuming, as John Hill does, that there was an exercise going on in Tavistock Square. We don't know that this is the case. It might well be, but of course if you build assumptions onto assumptions you end up with something unrealistic.

I'm watching this bit by bit - a slow burner is this one.
Good technique but you have to be patient.
So far so very good my verdict

To this:

TonyGosling wrote:

Good stuff but so slow - could do with some savage editing to tease out the key points - I'll have a go!

I have a few comments. Firstly, might I ask by what right you published a private email on a public forum? Secondly, my email was written in frustration at having waited two days, with no indication of how much longer I'd have to wait, for my account here to be activated. Presumably you started this forum to provide a space for discussion of 9/11 and so on. I don't buy your excuses for one moment, if you are away from the forum then you need to appoint someone who is going to be available to screen new users and activate accounts. Either that, or it comes across like you don't really care that much about providing a space for such discussion. Thirdly, how can you tell the difference between spam accounts and regular user accounts before they've even posted? This strikes me as either misguided, or just plain untrue. I put it to you that as a journalist you might have sought to respond to my email, perhaps asking for confirmation as to who I am, and for my permission to reproduce my email in public. Y'know, because that's what serious and credible investigators do. Rather than publish the email with permission, and editorialising it, calling it 'strange' and casting doubt on who I am prior to posting the email itself. You sought to tell people what to think about the email. Not impressed. Not impressed at all.

As to:

TonyGosling wrote:

Good stuff but so slow - could do with some savage editing to tease out the key points - I'll have a go!

No you will not, and how bloody dare you? If you want to make a film about 7/7 then you do the hard yards, you research the topic in detail, you obtain footage, you teach yourself how to edit a movie together, and you make your own film. You do not, and will not, take my film and chop it up to suit your own ideas of what a film about 7/7 should look like. I warn you, if I find you doing that there will be very dire consequences for you indeed. This is my work, and I devoted a long time to making the film how I wanted it to be. I'm not having you mess about with it.

That said, there is a far more serious issue that I have with this above and beyond being protective of my own work. I'm no Marxist, but a person's labour should belong to that person. Not any Tom, Dick or Tony who decides he thinks he can steal it and improve on it. No, the bigger issue is the implications of what you are saying.

Quote:

Good stuff but so slow

Part of the reason for making a wide-ranging, 2 1/2 hour film that demands patience, consideration, and a long attention span is precisely because far too much of these debates take place in 5 minute youtube videos consisting of little more than bullet points, and their equivalent in various written formats. This just encourages the same shallow, uncritical thinking enforced on people through mainstream media. Just as they feed information in a comfortable little package that you can take home, not think about, and blithely repeat to other people word for word, so does much of the alternative media. It teaches people that the way to present an argument is to blare headlines at people. It demands nothing more of people than mainstream news does.

The other principle motive for making the film in the way I did was, and I made this explicit in the voiceover for the film, to place the 7/7 discussion in the context of the history of official deceptions, covert operations and so on. Unless people know what a false flag black op actually looks like, how can they make any assessment as to whether it is a valid or reasonable explanation for what happened on 7/7? Just telling your audience that it was a false flag op and presenting a very selective group of news reports to try to support that (i.e. what Ripple Effect does) again demands nothing more of people than the news media presenting the official conspiracy theory. It provides them with no more information, no better quality of thinking about the information.

And so to have you suggest ripping parts of the film out to satisfy your desire for a cushy summary that doesn't mean people actually have to pay attention and think about things seriously, is ridiculous and insulting. The whole point of the film is to put the debate in an informed context. If you rip selected bits out of context because you think the film is too 'slow' then you'll completely ruin the film, and in fact be working against what I'm trying to accomplish with it. I am not having that. I spent a lot of time thinking about how to make a film that did what I was trying to do, and even longer actually making the film. That's my work. Don't even think about it.

And then there's the wider context of what you have done regarding 7/7. You wholly endorse Ripple Effect, despite it being the conspiratainment equivalent of Young Dumb and Living off Mum. You have promoted the film, got lots of people to see it. But it's a truly terrible documentary, indeed, to call it a documentary is to rate it too highly. It's naked propaganda at best, cherry picking evidence in the same way the Home Office narrative does. Also, given the amount of information it presents, it is terribly slow. You could sum up Ripple Effect in one of those five minute youtube videos I mentioned. This strikes me as dreadful double standards on your part.

Furthermore, you appeared on the equally awful BBC Conspiracy Files episode on 7/7. Now, I'm sure you'd seen past episodes of the show and so you have no recourse to the excuse that you felt it necessary 'to tell the other side of the argument'. The BBC had no desire to present a balanced, informative documentary. It was a hit piece, and in agreeing to be filmed for it, you gave them something to hit. If they didn't have you and Nick Kollerstrom then it would have been far more obvious that it was a one-dimensional show with a preformed conclusion. In so many ways, you legitimised the show that they wanted to make.

In summary, you are in no position to be deciding what someone else's film should look like, or how other people should pursue the questions and issues of 7/7. If you disrupt and oppose what I'm trying to do with my film by editing it then you will be in big trouble.

Hardly a review. A couple of sentences, one of which said you were going to re-edit my film.

Quote:

A mild one in this case.

It isn't the criticism per se. I was concerned about the length of the movie throughout the period I made it. In the end, I decided that ultimately the content was the most important thing.

However, you saying you were going to re-edit my film was and is unacceptable.

Quote:

Never mind the freedom of speech which you seem to dislike so much.

As I said, if you want to make your own film, go ahead. Ruin mine and you'll have me to answer to. Freedom of speech isn't a license to f**k up other people's work.

Quote:

Look up copyright law you'll find it's called fair use.

Look up fair use, it doesn't give you the right to butcher someone's film. It gives you the right to, for example, use a clip from my film in a film of your own.

Also, the 'use' part of fair use has to be deemed acceptable according to the terms of fair dealing. Look them up. I think you'll find chopping up someone's film because you think it is too long, in particular without the original filmmaker's permission or consent, does not conform to the terms of fair dealing.

Quote:

And it's somthing you've based film on.

No s**t, Sherlock. That's why it's extremely condescending of you to now tell me to look up copyright law.

Quote:

You seem to carry a lot of hatred and baggage.

No. If I carried a lot of hatred and baggage then I would have had a go at Andrew higher up on this thread for saying I'd missed out things that I had actually included, or for pointing out the things I did leave out of the film. But I didn't. You know why? Because I am perfectly happy for people to make justified criticisms and comments, and more than happy for people to make mistakes for which they then apologise.

Quote:

More, indeed for me, than for the 7/7 perps even!

I don't hate you. I'm concerned that you have posted a private email, including my email address, on a public forum. If you want to defuse this confrontation, you should remove it. I notice that you extend to Iain Overton, who OPPOSES any further investigation of 7/7, the courtesy of not putting his email address. Yet with me, an earnest filmmaker who has funded the time needed to make this film entirely out of my own savings, and who SUPPORTS many kinds of further investigation of 7/7, you put it up for the world to see.

Quote:

Let's stick to freely discussing the issues shall we, rather than the commenters.

Excuse me Tony, but you made the discussion personal by posting a private email, which you labeled 'strange', and cast doubt on my identity. If you want to back out of this now, remove the email and apologise for you own behaviour.

Quote:

If you did indeed anonymously make this film.

I didn't. I put my name in the credits.

Quote:

We don't allow swearing here amongst several other rules so please review what you have signed up to in the 'about this website' section before posting or you will be suspended/banned.
Ho-hum.

I live in Yorkshire. The word 'bloody' is not considered swearing round here.

Tell you what, in the interests of diplomacy, you remove the private information from this thread that you had no right to post and I won't swear again. I can't say fairer than that.

And then there's the wider context of what you have done regarding 7/7. You wholly endorse Ripple Effect, despite it being the conspiratainment equivalent of Young Dumb and Living off Mum. You have promoted the film, got lots of people to see it. But it's a truly terrible documentary, indeed, to call it a documentary is to rate it too highly. It's naked propaganda at best, cherry picking evidence in the same way the Home Office narrative does. Also, given the amount of information it presents, it is terribly slow. You could sum up Ripple Effect in one of those five minute youtube videos I mentioned. This strikes me as dreadful double standards on your part.

I think the Ripple Effect is a much better documentary and so do some others, There is a thread for this if you want to debate it.

Quote:

I couldn't include everything, and the issue of the warning is a bit convoluted. There seems to have been a warning, but who sent it to whom, and exactly when, is one of those things where the reporting all contradicts the other reporting. Though it was officially denied, so it almost definitely happened.

It's some of the most important to some people, this pre knowledge.

Quote:

Little or no mention of the counterfeit Israel companies that run the close-d circuit TV.

As above it's very important to some people.

Quote:

I don't think there's much evidence for 'hits' at Canary Wharf, and it is only particularly important if you are, a la Ripple Effect, trying to construct an inside job narrative. I wasn't. I could, but I'm not going to, at least not in a serious film.

There is much evidence for this.

Quote:

Louis Fernandez (the cameraman) didn't say he thought people were involved in a drill, he said he expected to see a film crew. Obachike goes much further than just expressing disbelief at what he saw, he says the whole thing was either a drill, a mock-up, or an inside job. I am not aware of any corroboration of Obachike's story, and if you are then by all means tell me about it.

I'll take another look.

(edit) P14: 06:39 witness from top deck? And Louis Fernandez 07:25

A guy in a white shirt,… there wasn’t a drop of blood on it,… with the injuries you would think you know,…. It’s as though he had just been placed there.

Quote:

I think you are assuming, as John Hill does, that there was an exercise going on in Tavistock Square. We don't know that this is the case. It might well be, but of course if you build assumptions onto assumptions you end up with something unrealistic.

Yes so do many other people and Peter Power told us so clearly there was an exercise going on. So 7/7 Ripple effect says he should be questioned further on this.

Quote:

Tell you what, in the interests of diplomacy, you remove the private information from this thread that you had no right to post and I won't swear again. I can't say fairer than that.

Mr Seker, Salem?

Andrew Edmans.

Last edited by Andrew. on Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:35 pm; edited 1 time in total

I think this new documentary is for serious researchers and is great to challenge the more intelligent sceptics.

Ripple Effect was also good. It was the first time I came across the Panorama crystal ball show which included our old friend Mr Power.

However R.E. leans toward an inside/mossad job bias a little too heavily and will turn off the more sceptical instantly, especially when they find out the film maker thinks he's the messiah.

Talk about dicrediting your own work.

In the end this is where the truth movement finds itself.

Infighting, bickering, accusations of "agents" or "gatekeepers" from all sides to all sides, a lack of support for new on-topic work and new researchers and a tendency to rely on old material as ammunition at the frontlines and the same old approaches. We haven't evolved and are sitting ducks when it comes to the new MO of Sh*testein and demos and the like.

Why dont those that lead some of the big groups out there give serious exposure to good new films like these? Having a section on a website that gives them more than just a thread of attention?

These sorts of films and the researchers that put in serious hours of research and editing are the lifeblood of the movement.

One would be tempted to say the movement is over really.

But I dont want to acknowledge that. As far as I'm concerned we have one more year. After the watershed 10th anniversary people become even more reticent to engage with the issues.

It we dont seriously reconsider our approach we'll be preaching to the converted til the 25th Anniversary and beyond.

I think this new documentary is for serious researchers and is great to challenge the more intelligent sceptics.

I think if people can not see who did this, it's they who are not intelligent.

Quote:

especially when they find out the film maker thinks he's the messiah.

Take it to another thread and show me/us where He is wrong with his claim on that. If you had any knowledge of Christ you would see it clearly and remember 2000 years ago only 12 people believed Him enough.

Quote:

However R.E. leans toward an inside/mossad job bias a little too heavily and will turn off the more sceptical instantly, especially when they find out the film maker thinks he's the messiah.

It does say other intel also.

(edit)

John: 16:22, 23,26

You have had all the miracles, and they wont be repeated, the rest is up to You, to follow and Do.

I think this new documentary is for serious researchers and is great to challenge the more intelligent sceptics.

I think if people can not see who did this, it's they who are not intelligent.

Did you know or did you have to watch Ripple Effect to find out?

Quote:

especially when they find out the film maker thinks he's the messiah.

Quote:

Take it to another thread and show me/us where He is wrong with his claim on that. If you had any knowledge of Christ you would see it clearly and remember 2000 years ago only 12 people believed Him enough.

Well that's at least one disciple he's got in you then. Do you know the other 11 yet or is he still waiting?

Quote:

However R.E. leans toward an inside/mossad job bias a little too heavily and will turn off the more sceptical instantly, especially when they find out the film maker thinks he's the messiah.

Quote:

You have had all the miracles, and they wont be repeated, the rest is up to You, to follow and Do.

You know what would be a real miracle, a God which didn't need a book to convince us all He exists. I mean come on. Across all the world's religions and their texts there isn't one that can stand up to the plate and say, "Hey folks, it's Me! I can prove it".

If the rest is to follow and do then it's not just up to me is it? Who am I supposed to follow? This is a rhetorical question of course and only I can answer.

That's why I dont need your messiah.

If you want to think that what you read in the bible is enough to convince you that some bloke with a movie maker and northern accent is the second coming then, quite frankly I dont wanna spoil the party.

Well that's at least one disciple he's got in you then. Do you know the other 11 yet or is he still waiting?

Yes I know them.
John 9:1-2; 5:14 They were told they would remain here at least untill.

Quote:

You know what would be a real miracle, a God which didn't need a book to convince us all He exists. I mean come on. Across all the world's religions and their texts there isn't one that can stand up to the plate and say, "Hey folks, it's Me! I can prove it".

There is for me and others and by following and Doing what it's says proves it to me and them. And others. (And in many other Works)

Quote:

Damn it must be fun at church these days.

You have a catholic church avatar, I don't go to church because the Bible tells us not to.

In that they did a song about religion and at least one was brought up as catholic, but could not see the lie’s of the church and by doing the song did the work of the church.

I mean, Ripple Effect is quite a good film and everything but is it really 2000 years in the making?

No, it's only a lead and one hour is all that is needed, same with 9/11 so people hopefully seek the truth. More time spent on this is only a distraction; apart from those who haven’t seen it so as to help them and let them make a choice.

All this info that people research is only a distraction from what they should be seeking. Get to know God and only then can you see how many distractions of devilish thoughts are in the cavern of our minds and how to beat them. You will not be able to do it without that help as something is so much intelligent than we are in our state.

Do you not see how it’s beating you now by what you think is you, putting so much emphasis on false flag attacks? (Which is not to say they have no importance)

A Truth Forum moderator, that uses so much doubleplus good talk, has no Truth in him.

You seem to know so much about me.

You have the audacity to say there's no truth in me whilst pontificating about how you know John Hill is the messiah.

Give me a break.

It's people like you that open up what we're all trying to do here to mass ridicule and endless derision.

Tell you what, if you really think you are the shining example of truth then why dont you set up a "messiah truth" event. You can get Shayler, Hill, Maitreya, Claude Vorilhon and the charred remains of Vernon Howell round a table to debate who has the true right to claim he is what you've all been waiting 2000 years for.

Mark 13:6 - Many will come in my name, saying, 'I am he!' and they will lead many astray.

Quote:

The sex pistols part is enough, I'm not going to play a game of eye spy with my little eye. If your that proud of it, just tell people what it fully means.

Ah, so you dont know what it means then. You admit it. How doubleplus good of you.

Tell you what, here's a deal, Get Hill to prove to us all he's the second coming and I'll tell you what the avatar means.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum